Redfearn v. Hines

Supreme Court of Georgia

Redfearn v. Hines

51 S.E. 407, 123 Ga. 391, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 473

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 16, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 S.E. 407 (Redfearn v. Hines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Redfearn v. Hines, 51 S.E. 407, 123 Ga. 391, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 473 (Ga. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

The only question argued in -this court was that of jurisdiction. Domicile is determined by act and intention. The evidence undoubtedly discloses an intention on the part of 'the defendant to make Thomas county his' domicile. But the undisputed evidence as to his conduct is such as to clearly indicate that this intention has not been carried into effect. Even if the mother and sister of an unmarried man can be so far treated as his family as to authorize service upon him by leaving process at the place where they are found, these relatives of the defendant had been carried by him from Thomas county to Brooks county, and were there keeping house with him. He owned no home and had no family residing in Thomas county at the time the suit .was brought. There would have been no [393]*393way under the law to have perfected service of process upon him in Thomas county. We think the evidence demanded a finding that he was domiciled in Brooks county at the time the suit was filed, and that therefore the suit was well brought in that county. This being so, if any errors were committed in charging on this issue, they were immaterial.

Judgment affirmed

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cobb, J.

The only question argued in -this court was that of jurisdiction. Domicile is determined by act and intention. The evidence undoubtedly discloses an intention on the part of 'the defendant to make Thomas county his' domicile. But the undisputed evidence as to his conduct is such as to clearly indicate that this intention has not been carried into effect. Even if the mother and sister of an unmarried man can be so far treated as his family as to authorize service upon him by leaving process at the place where they are found, these relatives of the defendant had been carried by him from Thomas county to Brooks county, and were there keeping house with him. He owned no home and had no family residing in Thomas county at the time the suit .was brought. There would have been no [393]*393way under the law to have perfected service of process upon him in Thomas county. We think the evidence demanded a finding that he was domiciled in Brooks county at the time the suit was filed, and that therefore the suit was well brought in that county. This being so, if any errors were committed in charging on this issue, they were immaterial.

Judgment affirmed

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 S.E. 407, 123 Ga. 391, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redfearn-v-hines-ga-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack